Hi Alan,

Your essay is well written and expresses what is wrong with the current state of Physics. I particularly like your description of what particles are/should be: constructed from waves rather than considered a point particles.

I have constructed a 3D computer model of the electron/positron, and determined their wave functions which describe these particle's properties exactly - both Classical and Quantum Mechanical descriptions match. My paper can be found here:

http://vixra.org/abs/1507.0054

I would be interested in your feedback on this paper if you can find the time to review it...

Regards,

Declan Traill

    Dear Mr. McEachern,

    I am not quite sure that I understand what you are addressing. Are you talking about Bell's inequality measurements that measure the polarization of a photon? If you had two separate photon beams sent to two separate detectors, the results would be uncorrelated.

    My criticism of these experiments is somewhat different - they may not be measuring single photons at all!

    Will you be submitting an essay this year?

    Regards,

    Alan Kadin

    Dear Declan,

    Thank you for reading my essay. I looked briefly at your paper. If I understand correctly, your trial wave is a complex oscillating wave with a Gaussian envelope, which should represent a localized electron at rest. The frequency is the proper quantum frequency based on the rest energy. A Gaussian envelope might make sense, if one can find a basis for confining the electron. The problem is that according to the Schrodinger equation, an unbound electron wave will quickly spread out.

    But what is the size of your electron wave? Your units are not consistent - as it stands, the size of the wave is units of sqrt(meters). The scale should probably be the Compton wavelength h/mc.

    A second observation is that you have a complex scalar wave. But if you want to incorporate spin, a real vector field makes more sense, since spin is associated with rotation of this field. (I have shown that a complex scalar wave is mathematically equivalent to a rotating vector field, but the pictures are quite different.)

    Will you be submitting an essay this year?

    Best wishes,

    Alan Kadin

    Dear Scott,

    Thank you for your comments and suggestions, but I am looking for a different kind of equation - a nonlinear wave equation, a partial differential equation in space and time that generates discrete amplitude wave packets.

    Alan Kadin

    Alan,

    When you say, " The problem is that according to the Schrodinger equation, an unbound electron wave will quickly spread out." ... does that mean in physical reality that it does not have a rest state, definite size at an energy density that exhibits electrostatic behavior? (that would be a problem for Schrodinger, methinks) :-) jrc

    I agree that they are certainly not measuring the kind of thing that they have assumed that they were measuring.

    "If you had two separate photon beams sent to two separate detectors, the results would be uncorrelated."

    In Bell tests on classical objects, it is possible to force "weird" correlations to exist, by systematically removing all but a single bit of measureable information from the entities being measured

    Since there is then only one bit to ever be measured, it is impossible to make two measurements that are uncorrelated. That is what Bell did not take into account.

    I have submitted entries in the past, but have no plans to do so this year.

    Best of luck with your own entry.

    Rob McEachern

    Alan,

    Yes the model represents an electron/positron at rest, and is an oscillating wave comprised of rotating vectors.

    The Schrodinger equation when applied to a point-particle electron may behave as you say, but I am using the wave function that describes the actual structure of the electron, and solutions to the Schrodinger equation and Classical wave equation will be stable 3D waves that persist.

    I'm not sure what you mean by "what size?" the 3D wave function is infinite in extent, but diminishes in intensity with distance from the particle center.

    The reason that the vectors are complex, is that the Schrodinger equation requires them to be, as it relates two vector quantities with a complex 'i' in the equation. The reason for that is that the two quantities are orthogonal - multiplying any complex vector by 'i' has the effect of rotating it 90 degrees around the origin in complex space. The vectors are actually real, but the Schrodinger equation uses this mathematical 'trick' to express orthogonality in a concise way.

    No, I'm not submitting an essay this year - don't have the time and the topic disn't inspire me enough this time.

    Best Regards,

    Declan Traill

    4 days later

    Hi Alan, thank you for sharing your recipe for unification. I am grateful that it is written in accessible English, so that I can easily follow your arguments. I do think you are right to discount space-time as a foundational necessity. Hilbert space is an analytical tool rather than actual stage where subatomic physics is happening. So I'm not worried about dispensing with that either. The little bold italic touches were nice. Little sage sound bites I could see on a fridge magnet : ). I think the entanglement issue stems from thinking of states or values as properties wholly belonging to the entity under investigation rather than being the outcome of the relations that have pertained in finding it. So although an isolated relative value or state does not exist until the experiment or viewpoint is imposed,(IE the character or value forming relation happens), applying the same context to two separate particles formed as a pair that are in some way opposites, will inevitably identify opposite singular values or states. I appreciate the time that must have gone into developing your model and preparing this presentation. Kind regards Georgina

      Alan,

      Thanks very much for the interesting paper. I was able to make a Braille-like assessment of it while sliding lightly over some of the equations. Still, you held my interest and I believe I got the broad strokes of your thesis because you developed it well.

      Hope to have a paper in the mix before the deadline.

      Regards, Don Foster

        Dear Georgina,

        Thank you for your reading and your comments. I aim toward clarity and simplicity. The key point of my essay is that nature should be simple and unified at the fundamental level. Obscurity and complexity are indications that something is seriously wrong. Remarkably, some of my sympathetic colleagues have suggested that I might be able to publish in a journal if I narrow the focus and make my intention LESS clear. I have not taken their advice.

        Alan

        Dear Don,

        I'm not sure what you mean by a "Braille-like assessment", but my main point is that reunification of physics can be achieved only if we reconsider several aspects that have long been accepted as proven. Otherwise, we are stuck trying to make sense out of aspects that are logically incompatible.

        I will look for your essay.

        Alan

        Dear Alan Kadin,

        your paper is interesting insofar as it makes a provable statement, namely that orthodox quantum mechanics differs from the predictions of your approach.

        Assuming that your predictions are confirmed by experiment, I nonetheless cannot unequivocally conclude what principles should be considered 'fundamental' in your approach, or put differently, how your approach answers the essay contest's question "what is 'fundamental'?"?

        You merely seem to answer what is *not* fundamental, what - if it turns out to be true - would be a major success indeed (no non-locality, no superpositions, no black holes, no singularities), no doubt about this. But what has your approach to say about what is fundamental regarding ultimate reality? Unfortunately I wasn't able to decipher a possible answer from your essay.

          Hello dear Mr Kadin,

          I liked a lot your general essay even if I consider the singularities, the black holes and dark matter like important. I wish you all the best in this contest.It was a relevant reading.This space time still and always but if we have only matter and energy instead of this Space time.....so it is just a tool electromagntically speaking but not gravitationally.

          Best Regards

            These électrons are very intriguing when we analyse deeper the exchanges.I read the works of Dirac and Hestenes about the électron respecting the pauli principle.The real question is what are they really ?

            And what is really the interactions of an electron and a photon? How have they been produced at this instant zero at the creation of this universe ? a photon a positron and an electron with the good thermodynamical parameters ? I am doubting , I beleive that they are like all a gravitational coded serie of spherical volumes, of course it is just my opinion, but in this logic the Big Bang is not a reality.

            We have like a gravitational system giving the properties to these series due probably to intrinsic codes in the quantum singularities.

            We see easily that in fact the main gravitational codes are the essential for these finite series of uniquenss, primordial, able to have all these comportments respecting our standard model.We can consider this gravitation in encircling this standard model.That explains the stable gravitation.The cold and heat dances in fact if I can say implying properties and the encodings furthermore continue. The électrons if we insert the series more the motions orbital and spinal and linear can be better understood in their gravitational cmportment in this matter. The works of Dirac, Hestenes, Compton seem very relevant to better understand them.I am persuaded that these gravitational codes are the secret giving the properties, stable of matters.

            Good luck in this contest, it is wonderful general work.

            Best Regards

            Dear Stefan Weckbach,

            Yes, I state that many things that are generally considered fundamental are not really fundamental at all.

            However, I argue clearly that real waves of fundamental particles, particularly electrons and photons, are at least MORE fundamental than other things, defining even time and space. Of course, one may respond that there are too many fundamental particles of this type - you can add positrons, muons, neutrinos, 6 kinds of quarks and antiparticles, gluons, and W and Z bosons. Can all of these really be fundamental? There may well be a layer underlying this, but so far, we do not really have insights into it. The various theoretical approaches for grand unification are really just mathematical guesses.

            Still, I believe that unifying physics around quantum waves provides a good first step looking toward the future of physics.

            Best wishes,

            Alan Kadin

            Dear Mr. Dufourny,

            Thank you for your interest in my essay. You make a number of interesting points, and others that I don't quite follow.

            Regarding the Pauli principle, as I state in my essay, this is quite fundamental, but I believe that Pauli's mathematical explanation is wrong. This was how entanglement snuck into quantum theory. I don't know the more correct explanation, except that is may follow from a nonlinear self-interaction of the electron field, producing a soliton-like domain (with quantized spin) that repels other electrons with the same spin.

            Alan Kadin

            Alan

            Thanks for an interesting article. You are fighting for a more realistic physics. Physics of today contains lots of science fiction. Your efforts are important.

            Another risk today is that physics is too much dominated by mathematics. You cannot just shut up and calculate! What do you think?

            Regards from _____________________ John- Erik Persson

              Response 1/9/18

              John-Erik,

              Thank you for your comments. Yes, I agree with you that abstract mathematics has become too dominant in physics. Many theoretical physicists believe that mathematics is MORE fundamental than realistic pictures of objects moving in space.

              I am a big fan of science fiction, but most of it is FICTION. There is no time travel, or warp-drive through wormholes, or alternate universes. And the only aliens any of us are likely to encounter are immigrants from other countries!

              Alan

              Alan,

              I carefully read your essay and your references. I admire your dedication to re-unifying physics. The other essays indicate there is a lot of variability and divergence in what people believe...physics needs a solid reentry point.

              I simply reduced some data in a different way and developed a model of the neutron. I haven't been able to communicate it well but I now know the reason it works. I use the concept of a quantum circle but the circle is a wave and we may be seeking the same thing. I use what MIT calls the unitary evolution of the Schrodinger equation. P=psi*psi=exp(iEt/H)*exp(-iEt/H). I deal with the exponents in the equation and know the values labelled E that model the neutron, electron, etc. I ask you, are these the waves that you are seeking? If they are, everything is a wave and physics is re-unified because I have applied these values of E to cosmology, atomic physics and the high energy lab results for mesons, baryons, etc.

              My problem in communicating this is P=1 and iEt/H=1 and you have to look inside the 1's. The equation E=e0*exp(N) that gives the E's is easily derived from the Schrodinger equation but I have never found any use of the equation in physics. [Barbee, Gene H., Schrodinger Fundamentals for Mesons and Baryons, October 2017, vixra:1710.0306v1].

              I placed an excerpt from the proton model below. The values of E that satisfy P=1 are 13.797, 5.076, 101.947 and 0.687 MeV. For example 5.076 MeV comes from the equation E-2.02e-5*exp(12.432).

              There are 4 E's, and P=1=psi*psi*psi*psi=exp(13.797it/H)*exp(5.076it/H)*exp(-101.947it/H)*exp(-0.687it/H). The imaginary numbers divide out and each Et/H=1. I labelled the E's mass, kinetic energy, strong field, and grav field. They describe what I call a quantum circle. But again, I ask are these just waves that stand there like your soliton? There is an equal amounts of positive energy and negative energy in the diagram above. The values 101.947 and 0.687 MeV are field energy. Is the circular curve really a field or is it just a sine wave? Maybe I mislabeled the E's.